Iagree with the kit lens and the Tamron 70-300 being the best bang for the buck. The Tamron seems to be a reasonable lens for the price, and it would take quite a bit more money to get significantly better quality at that range. From what I've seen, the new Pentax DA 55-300 is a bit better, but it's also more expensive - it's the lens I've been thinking of, but probably not the best as far as "bang for the buck".

Another option might be to get the kit lens, and the DA 50-200 right off,and then either buy a used *300 lens for wildlife, or spring for a DA*300 (after they recover from the sticker shock, at least compared to other Pentax lenses). That would get them noticeable better quality for wildlife, but they'd have to wait for the long end until they could afford it. The DA 50-200 has the advantage of being smaller and lighter than the Tamron, and possibly better for a walk-around type of lens.

I take another view that you get essentially the same quality for a lot less inconvience for not that much more money.My most used combination of lenses is the 18-250 and the Pentax 50 f1.4. I have tried the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 and find the 18-250 to be the better lens. One more example below of the 18-250 in low light. The jelly tank at the Monterey Bay aquarium at ISO 800. At the end of the day, there is really no argument, it's just a matter of what works for you.

But at every focal length where the ranges overlap, the 70-300 Di LD is faster, sharper, has less chromatic aberration, vignetting and distortion than the 18-250, often by a large margin. If these flaws aren't apparent inthe types of photography you are involved in, then the convenience is a big selling point.

So, did hego with the kit lens with the Hasselbad? Kidding! You find a lot of information on Pentax shooting modes throughout the web. Read the manual and practice with them and you will find they work really well.

So, did hego with the kit lens with the Hasselbad? Kidding! You find a lot of information on Pentax shooting modes throughout the web. Read the manual and practice with them and you will find they work really well.

I have also recommended that he pick up the Magic Lantern edition of the K200D to supplement the manual.

I have a Magic Lantern book re; my K10D and a book by Yvon Bourque on the K10D. Both these books I find are great supplements and in many cases their explanation of the K10D's features and processes are excellent, more easily understood than the manual, at times.

I must take you up on your offer of suggesting other, more cost efficient zoom lenses, to use on the Pentax K-2000. Certainly as you can easily see, the Pentax 18-250mm lens (a re-badged Tamron lens) is highly regarded by a lot of folks, myself included.

We all know and realize that the Pentax 18-250mm lens is very convenient. However, you have stated multiple times that there are indeed better, more cost efficient, lens choices for the Pentax K-2000. Can you please be very, very,specific and tell us exactly which zoom lenses you might have in mind?

So now my good friend, TCav, it is time to spill the beans! Exactly what other other more cost efficient zoom lenses, that you have repeatedly spoken about (in this thread)for the Pentax K-2000, are you specificially recommending. Could we please have very specific lenes, TCav. Thanks!

So now my good friend, TCav, it is time to spill the beans! Exactly what other other more cost efficient zoom lenses, that you have repeatedly spoken about (in this thread)for the Pentax K-2000, are you specificially recommending. Could we please have very specific lenes, TCav. Thanks!

Sarah Joyce

Already answered earlier in this post. Here was TCAv's suggestion when you asked earlier:

Quote:

How about the Pentax kit 18-55 for $130 (or $50 when purchased with the body)and a Tamron 70-300 Di LD for $160?